FW: Kalispell City Airport ResponseFound it, here it is.
Fred A. Leistiko
Airport Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
406-250-3065
Option 1 - Do Nothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and
orientation and perform minimal upgrades to improve safety at the
Airport.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected
critical aircraft and would therefore not be eligible for any Federal
funding assistance. Without FAA involvement, there are essentially no
issues with development; the City could pursue what ever improvements
they deem appropriate. Stelling would recommend that the City try to
achieve compliance with the minimum ARC design standards which would be
Design Group I (DG-I) - Small Aircraft Exclusively (SAE). Small
aircraft are planes weighing less than 12,500 pounds; Design Group I
aircraft are planes with wingspans less than 49'. The following is a
brief summary of the issues and the feasibility of meeting DG-I (SAE)
standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for
DG-I; the existing length will accommodate 75% of the GA fleet.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 250' (125' each side of
centerline) is required. Additional land and clearing would be required
on both sides at the south third of runway.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for
Small Aircraft Exclusively and visual approaches is a trapezoidal area
250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from each runway end. The current
location of Runway 13-31 does not place the RPZ's on airport property as
the FAA would require. Since Option 2 directly addresses a shift to the
south and an extension, this option will not comply with FAA standards
for RPZ's.
o Taxiways - The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to
Runway 13-31. DG-I standards require a minimum separation of 150'
between parallel taxiways and runways. Kalispell City Airport's taxiway
separation is 90'. In addition to the separation, the existing taxiways
do not meet the minimum width requirements for DG-I standards. The
existing taxiways are 20' wide; DG-I standards require 25' wide
taxiways. Different options are possible to construct new parallel
taxiways that meet DG-I standards. Each option will have different
issues associated with it. For example, if additional land is not
acquired on the west side of the runway and south of the connector
taxiway, there will not be sufficient land to extend the parallel
taxiway to Runway 31. To establish the feasibility of meeting DG-I
taxiway standards for all of the options will require further
evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace - The current ALP does not include information on
Part 77 airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore
difficult to evaluate without significant effort. Some basic
observations are that the KGEZ radio towers are penetrations to the
Runway 31 approach surface and are considered by the FAA to be hazardous
to air navigation. There also appears to be transitional surface (7:1)
penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option 1 Summary - Some property acquisition would be required to
establish the Runway OFA on airport property and total reconstruction of
the taxiways will be necessary to comply with the absolute minimum
design standards established by the FAA. The west side parallel taxiway
could not be extended to the end of Runway 31 without additional land
acquisition. Finally, this option would not meet the FAA's minimum RPZ
requirements. The FAA would not participate in or support Option 1
since it does not meet B-II design standards or RPZ requirements.
Option 2 - Do Nothing: Leave Runway 13-31 in its current location and
orientation but shift it to the south to meet the minimum RPZ
requirements for Runway 13 and extend to a length of 4,200'.
This option would not meet FAA design standards for the projected
critical aircraft and would therefore not be eligible for any Federal
funding assistance. The FAA has stated that they will not support
development of an ARC B-I facility at the Kalispell City Airport. This
option is intended to meet Design Group I (DG-I) standards and is
therefore similar to Option 1. The southerly shift and extension to
4,200' are the elements that differentiate it from Option 1. There are
two sub-categories of the DG-I group: Small Aircraft Exclusively (SAE)
and Not Exclusively Small Aircraft (NESA). SAE planes are those
weighing less than 12,500 pounds while NESA planes are those weighing
more than 12,500; Design Group I aircraft are planes with wingspans less
than 49'. The following is a brief summary of the issues and the
feasibility of meeting DG-I standards with respect to both SAE and NESA
standards:
o Runway 13-31 - Existing runway width of 60' meets minimum width for
DG-I both SAE and NESA. Constructing to a length of 4,200' with a
southerly shift of 700' will require the acquisition of several
commercial properties fronting US Highway 93 and the removal of several
buildings from these properties.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 250' (125' each side of
centerline) is required for SAE; a total width of 400' (200' each side
of centerline) is required for NESA. Additional land and clearing would
be required on both sides of the runway at the south third of runway to
comply with SAE and NESA requirements.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The minimum requirement for
Small Aircraft Exclusively and visual approaches is a trapezoidal area
250' x 450' x 1,000' beginning 200' from each runway end. The current
location of Runway 13-31 does not place the RPZs on airport property as
the FAA would require. To meet this requirement would require shifting
the runway approximately 700' to the south. Additional land would be
required to the south for a 700' shift and a 600' extension. The
additional land needed would include portions of commercial property
abutting US Highway 93 and a small corner of the property owned by the
Wise family.
o Taxiways - The two existing parallel taxiways are too close to
Runway 13-31. SAE standards require a minimum separation of 150'
between parallel taxiways and runways; NESA standards require a minimum
of 225' of separation. Kalispell City Airport's taxiway separation is
only 90'. In addition to the separation, the existing taxiways do not
meet the minimum width requirements for DG-I standards. The existing
taxiways are 20' wide; DG-I standards (Both SAE and NESA) require 25'
wide taxiways. It will not be possible to have a parallel taxiway on
the east side of the runway that meets DG-I NESA requirements. Rosauers
is too close to the existing runway to provide the separation and object
free areas that are required. It would be possible to meet DG-I SAE
standards, however. Different options are possible to construct new
parallel taxiways that meet DG-I SAE standards. Each option will have
different issues associated with it. To establish the feasibility of
meeting DG-I SAE taxiway standards will require further evaluation.
o Part 77 Airspace - The current ALP does not include information on
Part 77 airspace pertaining to the existing runway and is therefore
difficult to evaluate without significant effort. Some basic
observations are that the KGEZ radio towers are penetrations to the
Runway 31 approach surface and are considered by the FAA to be hazardous
to air navigation. There also appears to be transitional surface (7:1)
penetrations by the Hilton, Rosauers, and Murdochs.
Option 2 Summary - Significant property acquisition would be required to
shift and extend the runway to the south and establish the Runway OFA on
airport property. Several businesses fronting US Highway 93 would need
to be relocated to accommodate the shift and extension. Total
reconstruction of the taxiways will be necessary to comply with the
absolute minimum design standards established by the FAA. The west side
parallel taxiway could be extended to the end of Runway 31 with a minor
amount of additional land acquisition. The FAA would not participate in
or support Option 2 since it does not meet B-II design standards.
Option 3 - Reconstruct the runway to B-II standards along a 14-32
orientation to a length of 3,700'.
The FAA would support the planning and construction of the new runway to
DG-II standards but would not support a runway length limited to 3,700'.
The FAA has indicated that they will support a planning of length of
4,280' which would accommodate 95% of the GA fleet; planning to the
ultimate length for 100% of the GA fleet would not be required for FAA
support. Since a minimum runway length of 4,280' would be required for
FAA support, the issues pertaining to this options will be presented in
that context. This is essentially the option shown on the current ALP
but 500' shorter. The following is a brief summary of the issues and
the feasibility of meeting DG-II standards on a rotated or skewed
alignment and a length of 4,280':
o Runway 14-32 - New runway is constructed to a width of 75' to meet
DG-II standards. As noted above, the FAA would require planning to a
length that accommodates 95% of the GA fleet or 4,280'. Substantial
land acquisition would be required for the rotated alignment, southerly
shift, and extension to 4,280'. All of the new property acquisition
shown on the current Exhibit A Property Map would be required. However,
Cemetery Road would not need to be relocated.
o Runway Object Free Area - A total width of 500' (250' each side of
centerline) is required for DG-II standards. All of the new property
acquisition shown on the current Exhibit A Property Map would be
required to protect the OFA.
o Runway Protection Zones - This requirement is not directly related
to the Design Group but is a function of the Approach Category (A, B,
etc.) and Approach Visibility Minimums. The requirement for Aircraft
Approach Categories A and B with visual approaches (or NPI not lower
than 1 mile) is a trapezoidal area 500' x 700' x 1,000' beginning 200'
from each runway end. The proposed location of Runway 14-32 (as shown on
the ALP) would place the Runway 14 RPZ on airport property; the Runway
32 RPZ would require land acquisition to comply with FAA requirements.
o Taxiways - This option plans for the reconstruction of the taxiways
to DG-II standards. The proposed land acquisition includes the property
necessary to construct the new taxiways that comply with FAA design
standards.
o Part 77 Airspace - This option minimizes obstructions to the Part 77
airspace created by structures fronting US Highway 93. The FAA will
still require that the KGEZ radio towers be removed before they will
support improvements at Kalispell City Airport.
Option 3 Summary - This option will only garner FAA support if the
planned length of Runway 14-32 is 4,280' to accommodate 95% of the GA
fleet. The City would not necessarily need to construct to a length of
4,280' but they would need to show the 95% length on the ALP and acquire
the land needed to extend to that length. As a result, significant
property acquisition would be required to shift, rotate, and extend the
runway to the south and establish the Runway OFA and RPZs on airport
property. Several residences, including one or two on the Wise
property, would need to be relocated to accommodate the shift, rotation,
and extension. Total reconstruction of the taxiways will be necessary
to accommodate the runway changes and meet design standards established
by the FAA. The FAA would participate in and support Option 3 if it was
planned to a length of 4,280'.
Fred and I met with Gary Gates at the MAD Conference in Missoula on
March 5th to discuss the Kalispell City Airport. The FAA presented
several key development criteria for Kalispell City Airport:
1. The FAA will not support planning or construction of an ARC B-I
facility at Kalispell City Airport. The current level of aviation
activity and projected forecasts require planning for a B-II facility
for FAA support.
2. The FAA would support planning for a runway length less than
100% (4,700') but not less than 95% (4,280'). The City would not
necessarily need to construct to a 95% length but would need to show
that length on the ALP and acquire the necessary land for a future
runway extension. The FAA prefers to leave the 100% length requirement
in the plan for now and allow the EA process to address length through
public comment.
3. The FAA would support additional planning to assess whether
there are other suitable runway orientations (between existing and the
proposed 5 degree rotation) that comply with FAA standards but minimize
the amount of land needed from the Wise family.
4. The FAA is not willing to compromise aviation needs in order to
fit the existing environment or conditions at the airport. In other
words, the FAA won't support an effort to determine what airport
facilities will work on land the airport currently owns or can easily
acquire (ie work around the Wise property).
In summary, the FAA will only support development at Kalispell City
Airport of a facility that meets B-II requirements and is planned for a
minimum runway length of 4,280 feet. Anything short of these
requirements will not be supported by the FAA. Options 1 and 2
therefore would not be eligible for any Federal funding or reimbursement
on past investment. Option 3 would be eligible for Federal funding and
reimbursement provided that the runway is planned to a length of 4,280'.
There is also the potential runway rotation less than 5 degrees that
would decrease the amount of land required from the Wise family and
still meet FAA design standards. The City may want to evaluate this
option further.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Thanks
Jeff Walla, PE
Stelling Engineers, Inc.
1372 Airport Road
Kalispell, MT 59901
phone: 406-755-8602
fax: 406-755-8710
email: jwalla@stellinginc.com <mailto:jwalla@jwalla@stellinginc.com>
獥渠瑯瀠慬散琠敨删婐湯愠物潰瑲瀠潲数瑲⁹獡桴䅆⁁潷汵敲畱物†潔洠敥⁴桴獩爠煥極敲敭瑮眠畯摬爠煥極敲猠楨瑦湩൧琊敨爠湵慷⁹灡牰硯浩瑡汥⁹〷✰琠桴潳瑵†摁楤楴湯污氠湡潷汵敢敲畱物摥琠桴潳瑵潦〷✰猠楨瑦愠摮愠㘠〰‧硥整獮潩†桔愊摤瑩潩慮慬摮渠敥敤潷汵湩汣摵潰瑲潩獮漠潣浭牥楣污瀠潲数瑲൹愊畢瑴湩单䠠杩睨祡㤠″湡浳污潣湲牥漠桴牰灯牥祴漠湷摥戠⁹桴
圊獩慦業祬മഊ漊†吠硡睩祡桔睴硥獩楴杮瀠牡污敬慴楸慷獹愠敲琠潯挠潬敳琠൯刊湵慷⁹㌱㌭⸱†䅓⁅瑳湡慤摲敲畱物業楮畭敳慰慲楴湯漠㔱✰敢睴敥慰慲汬汥琠硡睩祡湡畲睮祡㭳丠卅⁁瑳湡慤摲敲畱物業楮畭൭漊㈲✵漠敳慰慲楴湯䬠污獩数汬䌠瑩⁹楁灲牯❴慴楸慷⁹敳慰慲楴湯椠൳漊汮⁹〹⸧†湉愠摤瑩潩潴琠敨猠灥牡瑡潩Ɱ琠敨攠楸瑳湩慴楸慷獹搠潮൴洊敥⁴桴業楮畭楷瑤敲畱物
浥湥獴映牯䐠ⵇ⁉瑳湡慤摲†桔硥獩楴杮慴楸慷獹愠敲㈠✰眠摩㭥䐠ⵇ⁉瑳湡慤摲䈨瑯䅓⁅湡䕎䅓
敲畱物㔲ധ眊摩慴楸慷獹䤠⁴楷汬渠瑯戠潰獳扩敬琠慨敶愠瀠牡污敬慴楸慷⁹湯桴慥瑳猠摩景琠敨爠湵慷⁹桴瑡洠敥獴䐠ⵇ⁉䕎䅓爠煥極敲敭瑮†潒慳敵獲獩琠潯挠潬敳琠桴硥獩楴杮爠湵慷⁹潴瀠潲楶敤琠敨猠灥牡瑡潩湡扯敪瑣牦敥愠敲獡琠慨⁴牡敲畱物摥䤠⁴潷汵敢瀠獯楳汢潴洠敥⁴䝄䤭匠䕁瑳湡慤摲ⱳ栠睯癥牥䐠晩敦敲瑮漠瑰潩獮愠敲瀠獯楳汢潴挠湯瑳畲瑣渠睥慰慲汬汥琠硡睩祡桴瑡洠敥
⁴䝄䤭匠䕁猠慴摮牡獤䔠捡灯楴湯眠汩慨敶楤晦牥湥⁴獩畳獥愠獳捯慩整楷桴椠†潔攠瑳扡楬桳琠敨映慥楳楢楬祴漠൦洊敥楴杮䐠ⵇ⁉䅓⁅慴楸慷⁹瑳湡慤摲楷汬爠煥極敲映牵桴牥攠慶畬瑡潩†慐瑲㜠‷楁獲慰散ⴠ吠敨挠牵敲瑮䄠偌搠敯潮⁴湩汣摵湩潦浲瑡潩湯慐瑲㜠‷楡獲慰散瀠牥慴湩湩潴琠敨攠楸瑳湩畲睮祡愠摮椠桴牥晥牯搊晩楦畣瑬琠癥污慵整眠瑩潨瑵猠杩楮楦慣瑮攠晦牯†潓敭戠獡捩扯敳癲
瑡潩獮愠敲琠慨⁴桴䝋婅爠摡潩琠睯牥牡数敮牴瑡潩獮琠桴刊湵慷⁹ㄳ愠灰潲捡畳晲捡湡牡潣獮摩牥摥戠⁹桴䅆⁁潴戠慨慺摲畯൳琊楡慮楶慧楴湯吠敨敲愠獬灡数牡潴戠牴湡楳楴湯污猠牵慦散⠠㨷⤱数敮牴瑡潩獮戠⁹桴楈瑬湯潒慳敵獲湡畍摲捯獨ഠഊ 灏楴湯㈠匠浵慭祲ⴠ匠杩楮楦慣瑮瀠潲数瑲⁹捡畱獩瑩潩潷汵敢爠煥極敲潴桳晩⁴湡硥整摮琠敨爠湵慷⁹潴琠敨猠畯桴愠摮攠瑳扡楬
桳琠敨删湵慷⁹䙏⁁湯楡灲牯⁴牰灯牥祴匠癥牥污戠獵湩獥敳牦湯楴杮唠⁓楈桧慷⁹㌹眠畯摬渠敥琊敢爠汥捯瑡摥琠捡潣浭摯瑡桴桳晩⁴湡硥整獮潩†潔慴൬爊捥湯瑳畲瑣潩景琠敨琠硡睩祡楷汬戠敮散獳牡⁹潴挠浯汰⁹楷桴琠敨扡潳畬整洠湩浩浵搠獥杩瑳湡慤摲獥慴汢獩敨祢琠敨䘠䅁吠敨眠獥⁴楳敤慰慲汬汥琠硡睩祡挠畯摬戠硥整摮摥琠桴湥景删湵慷⁹ㄳ眠瑩業潮൲愊潭湵⁴景愠摤瑩潩慮慬
摮愠煣極楳楴湯吠敨䘠䅁眠畯摬渠瑯瀠牡楴楣慰整椠൮漊畳灰牯⁴灏楴湯㈠猠湩散椠⁴潤獥渠瑯洠敥⁴ⵂ䥉搠獥杩瑳湡慤摲ഠഊ 灏楴湯㌠ⴠ删捥湯瑳畲瑣琠敨爠湵慷⁹潴䈠䤭⁉瑳湡慤摲污湯㐱㌭ല漊楲湥慴楴湯琠敬杮桴漠ⰳ〷✰മഊ 桔䅆⁁潷汵畳灰牯⁴桴汰湡楮杮愠摮挠湯瑳畲瑣潩景琠敨渠睥爠湵慷⁹潴䝄䤭⁉瑳湡慤摲畢⁴潷汵潮⁴畳灰牯⁴畲睮祡氠湥瑧楬業整潴㌠㜬〰⸧桔䅆⁁慨
湩楤慣整桴瑡琠敨⁹楷汬猠灵潰瑲愠瀠慬湮湩景氠湥瑧景ⰴ㠲✰眠楨档眠畯摬愠捣浯潭慤整㤠┵漠桴䅇映敬瑥※汰湡楮杮琠桴甊瑬浩瑡敬杮桴映牯ㄠ〰‥景琠敨䜠⁁汦敥⁴潷汵潮⁴敢爠煥極敲潦䅆ു猊灵潰瑲匠湩散愠洠湩浩浵爠湵慷⁹敬杮桴漠ⰴ㠲✰眠畯摬戠敲畱物摥映牯䅆⁁畳灰牯ⱴ琠敨椠獳敵数瑲楡楮杮琠桴獩漠瑰潩獮眠汩敢瀠敲敳瑮摥椠൮琊慨⁴潣瑮硥†桔獩椠獥敳瑮慩汬⁹桴灯楴湯猠潨湷
漠桴畣牲湥⁴䱁戊瑵㔠〰‧桳牯整†桔潦汬睯湩獩愠戠楲晥猠浵慭祲漠桴獩畳獥愠摮桴敦獡扩汩瑩⁹景洠敥楴杮䐠ⵇ䥉猠慴摮牡獤漠潲慴整牯猠敫敷愊楬湧敭瑮愠摮愠氠湥瑧景㐠㈬〸㨧ഠഊ漊†删湵慷⁹㐱㌭′敎⁷畲睮祡椠潣獮牴捵整潴愠眠摩桴漠㔷‧潴洠敥൴䐊ⵇ䥉猠慴摮牡獤䄠潮整扡癯ⱥ琠敨䘠䅁眠畯摬爠煥極敲瀠慬湮湩潴愠敬杮桴琠慨⁴捡潣浭摯瑡獥㤠┵漠桴䅇映敬瑥漠ⰴ㠲✰
匠扵瑳湡楴污慬摮愠煣極楳楴湯眠畯摬戠敲畱物摥映牯琠敨爠瑯瑡摥愠楬湧敭瑮潳瑵敨汲൹猊楨瑦湡硥整獮潩潴㐠㈬〸⸧†汁景琠敨渠睥瀠潲数瑲⁹捡畱獩瑩潩൮猊潨湷漠桴畣牲湥⁴硅楨楢⁴⁁牐灯牥祴䴠灡眠畯摬戠敲畱物摥䠠睯癥牥ബ䌊浥瑥牥⁹潒摡眠畯摬渠瑯渠敥潴戠敲潬慣整ഠഊ漊†删湵慷⁹扏敪瑣䘠敲牁慥ⴠ䄠琠瑯污眠摩桴漠〵✰⠠㔲✰攠捡楳敤漠൦挊湥整汲湩⥥椠敲畱物摥映牯䐠ⵇ䥉猠慴摮牡獤
䄠汬漠桴敮⁷牰灯牥祴捡畱獩瑩潩桳睯湯琠敨挠牵敲瑮䔠桸扩瑩䄠倠潲数瑲⁹慍⁰潷汵敢敲畱物摥琠牰瑯捥⁴桴䙏⹁††畒睮祡倠潲整瑣潩潚敮桔獩爠煥極敲敭瑮椠潮⁴楤敲瑣祬爠汥瑡摥潴琠敨䐠獥杩片畯⁰畢⁴獩愠映湵瑣潩景琠敨䄠灰潲捡慃整潧祲⠠ⱁ䈠ബ攊捴⤮愠摮䄠灰潲捡楖楳楢楬祴䴠湩浩浵†桔敲畱物浥湥⁴潦楁捲慲瑦灁牰慯档䌠瑡来牯敩⁁湡⁂楷桴瘠獩慵灡牰慯档獥⠠牯丠
䥐渠瑯氠睯牥桴湡ㄠ洠汩⥥椠牴灡穥楯慤牡慥㔠〰‧⁸〷✰砠ㄠ〬〰‧敢楧湮湩〲✰牦浯攠捡畲睮祡攠摮桔牰灯獯摥氠捯瑡潩景删湵慷⁹㐱㌭′愨桳睯湯桴䱁⥐眠畯摬瀠慬散琠敨删湵慷⁹㐱删婐漠楡灲牯⁴牰灯牥祴※桴畒睮祡㈳删婐眠畯摬爠煥極敲氠湡捡畱獩瑩潩潴挠浯汰⁹楷桴䘠䅁爠煥極敲敭瑮††慔楸慷獹ⴠ吠楨灯楴湯瀠慬獮映牯琠敨爠捥湯瑳畲瑣潩景琠敨琠硡睩祡൳琊䝄䤭⁉瑳湡慤摲
†桔牰灯獯摥氠湡捡畱獩瑩潩湩汣摵獥琠敨瀠潲数瑲൹渊捥獥慳祲琠潣獮牴捵⁴桴敮⁷慴楸慷獹琠慨⁴潣灭祬眠瑩䅆⁁敤楳湧瑳湡慤摲†慐瑲㜠‷楁獲慰散ⴠ吠楨灯楴湯洠湩浩穩獥漠獢牴捵楴湯潴琠敨倠牡⁴㜷楡獲慰散挠敲瑡摥戠⁹瑳畲瑣牵獥映潲瑮湩单䠠杩睨祡㤠⸳†桔䅆⁁楷汬瑳汩敲畱物桴瑡琠敨䬠䕇⁚慲楤潴敷獲戠敲潭敶敢潦敲琠敨⁹楷汬畳灰牯⁴浩牰癯浥湥獴愠⁴態楬灳汥楃祴䄠物潰
瑲മഊ 灏楴湯㌠匠浵慭祲ⴠ吠楨灯楴湯眠汩湯祬朠牡敮䅆⁁畳灰牯⁴晩琠敨汰湡敮敬杮桴漠畒睮祡ㄠⴴ㈳椠ⰴ㠲✰琠捡潣浭摯瑡㔹‥景琠敨䜠ു昊敬瑥吠敨䌠瑩⁹潷汵潮⁴敮散獳牡汩⁹敮摥琠潣獮牴捵⁴潴愠氠湥瑧景ⰴ㠲✰戠瑵琠敨⁹潷汵敮摥琠桳睯琠敨㤠┵氠湥瑧湯琠敨䄠偌愠摮愠煣極敲桴慬摮渠敥敤潴攠瑸湥潴琠慨⁴敬杮桴䄠敲畳瑬楳湧晩捩湡൴瀊潲数瑲⁹捡畱獩瑩潩潷汵敢爠
煥極敲潴猠楨瑦潲慴整湡硥整摮琠敨畲睮祡琠桴潳瑵湡獥慴汢獩桴畒睮祡传䅆愠摮删婐湯愠物潰瑲牰灯牥祴匠癥牥污爠獥摩湥散ⱳ椠据畬楤杮漠敮漠睴湯琠敨圠獩瀊潲数瑲ⱹ眠畯摬渠敥潴戠敲潬慣整潴愠捣浯潭慤整琠敨猠楨瑦潲慴楴湯ബ愊摮攠瑸湥楳湯吠瑯污爠捥湯瑳畲瑣潩景琠敨琠硡睩祡楷汬戠敮散獳牡൹琊捡潣浭摯瑡桴畲睮祡挠慨杮獥愠摮洠敥⁴敤楳湧猠慴摮牡獤攠瑳扡楬桳摥祢
琠敨䘠䅁吠敨䘠䅁眠畯摬瀠牡楴楣慰整椠湡畳灰牯⁴灏楴湯㌠椠瑩眠獡汰湡敮潴愠氠湥瑧景㐠㈬〸⸧ഠഊ䘊敲湡⁉敭⁴楷桴䜠牡⁹慇整瑡琠敨䴠䑁䌠湯敦敲据湩䴠獩潳汵湯慍捲琵潴搠獩畣獳琠敨䬠污獩数汬䌠瑩⁹楁灲牯†桔䅆⁁牰獥湥整猊癥牥污欠祥搠癥汥灯敭瑮挠楲整楲潦態楬灳汥楃祴䄠物潰瑲›ഠഊㄊम桔䅆⁁楷汬渠瑯猠灵潰瑲瀠慬湮湩牯挠湯瑳畲瑣潩景愠剁⁃ⵂ昊捡汩瑩⁹瑡
䬠污獩数汬䌠瑩⁹楁灲牯†桔畣牲湥⁴敬敶景愠楶瑡潩൮愊瑣癩瑩⁹湡牰橯捥整潦敲慣瑳敲畱物汰湡楮杮映牯愠䈠䤭⁉慦楣楬祴潦䅆⁁畳灰牯ഠഊ㈊म桔䅆⁁潷汵畳灰牯⁴汰湡楮杮映牯愠爠湵慷⁹敬杮桴氠獥桴湡〱┰⠠ⰴ〷✰
畢⁴潮⁴敬獳琠慨㔹‥㐨㈬〸⤧吠敨䌠瑩⁹潷汵潮൴渊捥獥慳楲祬渠敥潴挠湯瑳畲瑣琠㔹‥敬杮桴戠瑵眠畯摬渠敥潴猠潨൷琊慨⁴敬杮桴漠桴䱁⁐湡捡畱物桴敮散獳牡⁹慬摮映牯愠映瑵牵爊湵慷⁹硥整獮潩†桔䅆⁁牰晥牥潴氠慥敶琠敨ㄠ〰‥敬杮桴爠煥極敲敭瑮湩琠敨瀠慬潦潮⁷湡污潬⁷桴䅅瀠潲散獳琠摡牤獥敬杮桴琠牨畯桧異汢捩挠浯敭瑮മഊ ⸳吉敨䘠䅁眠畯摬猠灵潰瑲愠摤瑩潩慮汰
湡楮杮琠獡敳獳眠敨桴牥桴牥牡瑯敨畳瑩扡敬爠湵慷⁹牯敩瑮瑡潩獮⠠敢睴敥硥獩楴杮愠摮琠敨牰灯獯摥㔠搠来敲潲慴楴湯
桴瑡挠浯汰⁹楷桴䘠䅁猠慴摮牡獤戠瑵洠湩浩穩琊敨愠潭湵⁴景氠湡敮摥摥映潲桴楗敳映浡汩ഠഊ㐊म桔䅆⁁獩渠瑯眠汩楬杮琠潣灭潲業敳愠楶瑡潩敮摥湩漠摲牥琠൯昊瑩琠敨攠楸瑳湩湥楶潲浮湥⁴牯挠湯楤楴湯瑡琠敨愠物潰瑲䤠瑯敨൲眊牯獤桴䅆⁁潷❮⁴畳灰牯⁴湡攠晦牯⁴潴搠瑥牥業敮眠慨⁴楡灲牯൴昊捡汩瑩敩楷汬眠牯湯氠湡桴楡灲牯⁴畣牲湥汴⁹睯獮漠慣慥楳祬捡畱物椨潷歲愠潲湵
桴楗敳瀠潲数瑲⥹ഠഊ 湉猠浵慭祲桴䅆⁁楷汬漠汮⁹畳灰牯⁴敤敶潬浰湥⁴瑡䬠污獩数汬䌠瑩൹䄊物潰瑲漠慦楣楬祴琠慨⁴敭瑥ⵂ䥉爠煥極敲敭瑮湡獩瀠慬湮摥映牯愠業楮畭畲睮祡氠湥瑧景㐠㈬〸映敥†湁瑹楨杮猠潨瑲漠桴獥爊煥極敲敭瑮楷汬渠瑯戠畳灰牯整祢琠敨䘠䅁传瑰潩獮ㄠ愠摮㈠桴牥晥牯潷汵潮⁴敢攠楬楧汢潦湡⁹敆敤慲畦摮湩牯爠楥扭牵敳敭瑮湯瀠獡⁴湩敶瑳敭瑮传
瑰潩″潷汵敢攠楬楧汢潦敆敤慲畦摮湩湡爊楥扭牵敳敭瑮瀠潲楶敤桴瑡琠敨爠湵慷⁹獩瀠慬湮摥琠敬杮桴漠ⰴ㠲✰മ吊敨敲椠污潳琠敨瀠瑯湥楴污爠湵慷⁹潲慴楴湯氠獥桴湡㔠搠来敲獥琠慨൴眊畯摬搠捥敲獡桴浡畯瑮漠慬摮爠煥極敲牦浯琠敨圠獩慦業祬愠摮瑳汩敭瑥䘠䅁搠獥杩瑳湡慤摲†桔楃祴洠祡眠湡⁴潴攠慶畬瑡桴獩灯楴湯映牵桴牥മഊ 汐慥敳映敥牦敥琠慣汬洠晩礠畯栠癡
湡⁹畱獥楴湯ഠഊ吊慨歮敊晦圠污慬䕐瑓汥楬杮䔠杮湩敥獲湉㌱㈷䄠物潰瑲删慯䬊污獩数汬呍㔠㤹桰湯㩥†〴ⴶ㔷ⴵ㘸㈰慦㩸†〴ⴶ㔷ⴵ㜸〱浥楡㩬†睪污慬獀整汬湩楧据挮浯㰠慭汩潴樺慷汬䁡睪污慬獀整汬湩楧据挮浯‾†ഠഊ